We can get particles in accelerators up to 99.9999999988% the speed of light, and the Universe makes ones that are even faster! But despite all of this, there's a limit, and that limit is more restrictive than the speed of light in a vacuum!

More like this

"All our sweetest hours fly the fastest." -Virgil
If you've been around the block once or twice, you know that the speed of light in a vacuum -- 299,792,458 meters-per-second -- is the absolute maximum speed that any form of energy in the Universe can travel at. In shorthand, this speed is known as…

"Alas! must it ever be so?
Do we stand in our own light, wherever we go,
And fight our own shadows forever?" -Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Ever since it was conjectured that the speed of light was the ultimate speed limit of the Universe, we have tried -- with the most powerful of our tools -- to push as…

"The results of my observation are best explained by the assumption that a radiation of very great penetrating power enters our atmosphere from above." -Victor Hess
You might think of the largest and most powerful particle accelerators in the world -- places like SLAC, Fermilab and the Large Hadron…

“Life and death matters, yes. And the question of how to behave in this world, how to go in the face of everything. Time is short and the water is rising.” -Raymond Carver
As we make our way through October, Halloween approaches here at Starts With A Bang! But as eerie as the world and our Universe…

Besides the concept of fixed maximum speed, another concept of relativity is that speed can only be measured (exist) relative to something else.

Is the cosmic background radiation some sort of fixed reference frame so that it will fry us when we speed up relative to that?

@Anne Blankert #1: The CMB _is_ the "rest frame of the Universe." That is, it does provide a frame which multiple observers could, in principle, use to assign each other particular velocities.

However, that situation does not violate Einsteinian relativity, any more than does having all of us here on the planet measure our speeds relative to the "fixed rest frame" of the ground. We can use special relativity to compute what the CMB would look like to any observer, travelling with any speed with respect to us or to the CMB itself.

In fact, we know our own speed relative to the CMB, because the data includes a dipole component. That is, there is a particular direction (roughly in the direction of Virgo, I believe) toward which we are moving (at about 370 km/s), with respect to the rest of the Universe.

@Michael Kelsey #2:
Do I remember correctly that the actual observation of that dipole component was delayed because it was largely negated by the current solar system orbital velocity of about 220 km/s in almost exactly the opposite direction? I think that tidbit was in a book about COBE.

I fact, I think the Milky Way as a whole was observed to move at close to 600 km/s and that 370 would then be the current net effect seen here.

@CatMat #3: I'm afraid I don't know the COBE history. However, I do know that the dipole component is a direct measure of the _Earth's_ motion, not the motion of the Milky Way. There is a small (~30 km/s) component due to the Earth's orbit; the dominant feature in the dipole is the Sun's motion through the galaxy (which is about 220 km/s, as you wrote).

The Milky Way's speed relative to the CMB has to be derived, by taking into account the Sun's orbital vector, plus the direction of the galactic center. It ends up being about 552 km/s.

It is very interesting to know that we are capable of reaching the speed of light using small particles. How does the universe make particles accelerate faster than the speed of light? What is the 'limit' and of what does it consist?

@shannon #5: You've got a few misconceptions; I hope I can help to clean things up for you.

Particles, whether we accelerate them or Nature does, don't "reach" the speed of light. They can get very close to it, but they don't reach or exceed it.

Here on Earth, we accelerate particles using a combination of electric and magnetic fields. The electric fields push on the particles' charge, to give them more energy. The magnetic fields bend the particles along curved paths. By combining the two, we can make the particle go around in circles, gaining more and more energy on each circuit.

Something similar happens in nature. Galaxies have magnetic fields associated with them, and the gas of the galaxy is often ionized, so there are electric fields present. Also, explosions like supernovae can accelerate particles "mechanically" (that is, from the explosion itself).

As for the cosmological speed limit, I suggest that you go back and read Ethan's article, since he explains it fairly clearly.

Donate

ScienceBlogs is where scientists communicate directly with the public. We are part of Science 2.0, a science education nonprofit operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Please make a tax-deductible donation if you value independent science communication, collaboration, participation, and open access.

You can also shop using Amazon Smile and though you pay nothing more we get a tiny something.

More by this author

What better way to say farewell than with a slew of costume pictures from this year's (coming) Halloween?
Happy Halloween 2017!
From Ethan Siegel and Starts With A Bang.
Keep looking to the Universe.
And we'll have a lifetime of wonderful things to still explore.
Goodbye, Scienceblogs,…

"Delay is the deadliest form of denial." -C. Northcote Parkinson
Every massless particle and wave travels at the speed of light when it moves through a vacuum. Over a distance of 130 million light years, the gamma rays and gravitational waves emitted by merging neutron stars arrived offset by a…

“On what can we now place our hopes of solving the many riddles which still exist as to the origin and composition of cosmic rays?” –Victor Francis Hess
It’s often said that advanced in physics aren’t met with “eureka!” but rather with “that’s funny,” but the truth is even stranger sometimes.…

“I am looking at the future with concern, but with good hope.” –Albert Schweitzer
Every so often, the argument comes up that science is expendable. That we’re simply investing too much of our resources — too much public money — into an endeavor with no short-term benefits. Meanwhile, there’s…

"Dark matter is interesting. Basically, the Universe is heavier than it should be. There's whole swathes of stuff we can't account for." -Talulah Riley
One of the most puzzling facts about the Universe is that 95% of the energy in it, in the forms of dark matter and dark energy, are completely…

More reads

"In the future, maybe quantum mechanics will teach us something equally chilling about exactly how we exist from moment to moment of what we like to think of as time." -Richard K. Morgan
It’s absolutely true that, in quantum mechanics, there are certain pairs of properties that we simply can’t measure simultaneously. Measure the position of an object really well, and its momentum becomes more…

In case you didn't know, reality is science fiction.
If you doubt me, read the news. Read, for example, this recent article in the New York Times about Carnegie Mellon's "Read the Web" program, in which a computer system called NELL (Never Ending Language Learner) is systematically reading the internet and analyzing sentences for semantic categories and facts, essentially teaching itself…

Blurring, chopping and blocking. Three online items this week all deal with some pretty dynamic phenomena.
The blurring is in our perceptions. It turns out that if you even think you have lost money in an experiment, your ability to distinguish between musical notes will be hampered. What’s the connection? Dr. Rony Paz has been showing that this tendency to lump sounds together is tied to fear.…